ABP uphold council’s decision to refuse permission at Kilnamanagh site

AN Bord Pleanála (ABP) has upheld South Dublin County Council’s decision to refuse planning permission for the development of two houses on lands adjacent Elmcastle Court in Kilnamanagh.

Applicant Noeleen Harte’s plans for the site included the construction of two four-bedroom detached houses with dormer structures, which she stated were for her children to live in.

The houses were to consist of a living room, utility room, kitchen, toilet and store at ground floor, three bedrooms, toilet and store at first floor bedroom/attic area with ensuite at dormer attic level.

The proposal also included raising the existing side boundary wall to two-metres-high up to the main building line on the north-east.

Provision of the construction of new boundary wall between two dwellings and new 3.5m wide front entrances to both dwellings formed part of the plans.

Permission was also sought for the removal of existing trees at the south-east of the site and replanting of the same species trees to the north-east.

Ms Harte also planned to extend the public road and footpath to be taken in charge on Elmcastle Court and to relocate the existing public lighting pole at the south-east of the site.

The application attracted two objections from local residents, land is privately owned “and is now not available as an open space to the public”.

Marion and Lewis Meer who submitted a joint objection, and Chris O’Brien.

The objectors all voiced their opposition to the proposed removal of the trees, while Mr O’Brien pointed out that Elmcastle residents had planted the trees approximately 40 years ago.

“Elmcastle Court is a small cul-de sac with 21 homes, and the majority of residents object to building on this site, which is an integral part of our small community,” wrote Mr O’Brien in his objection.

“The trees provide cover and a barrier to noise from the busy Kilnamanagh Community Centre which faces us.”

On November 1 last, South Dublin County Council refused permission for the development as it “would set an undesirable precedent for other similar developments, which would in themselves and cumulatively, be harmful to the open space and recreational amenities of the area”.

The council also noted that the subject site is zoned to preserve and provide for open space and recreational amenities and, as such, the proposal would “materially contravene the zoning objective for the site”.

On November 23, Ms Harte lodged an appeal against the council’s decision to refuse planning permission.

It’s noted in the appeal that Ms Harte is “a lifelong resident” of the area and it is stated that “the purpose of the proposed development is to provide housing for her children”.

The appellant also stated that the “It is our view that this small section of land adjacent to a fully built-up residential area would be much better utilised to provide much-needed housing to lifelong residents,” according to the appeal.

Concerns about “inconsistencies” around the application of the County Development Plan and zoning of land were also referred to in the appeal, along with following government directives for housing.

On June 25, ABP upheld SDCC’s ecision to refuse planning permission, as the appeals board found the development would “materially contravene” the zoning of the site, which is zoned for open space use.